Mississippi Employment Security Commission v. Ouida J. Claiborne
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2003-CC-00068-COA
MISSISSIPPI EMPLOYMENT SECURITY
COMMISSION
v.
OUIDA J. CLAIBORNE
DATE OF TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
CERTIORARI FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLANT
APPELLEE
9/12/2002
HON. ISADORE W. PATRICK, JR.
WARREN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
ALBERT B. WHITE
OUIDA J. CLAIBORNE (PRO SE)
CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES
DENIAL OF UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS
REVERSED
REVERSED AND RENDERED - 4/27/2004
BEFORE MCMILLIN, C.J., BRIDGES AND GRIFFIS, JJ.
MCMILLIN, C.J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
After being terminated from her job at the Isle of Capri Casino, Ouida J. Claiborne applied for
unemployment compensation benefits. The Commission denied her right to receive benefits on a finding
that she had been terminated for disqualifying misconduct. On appeal, the Circuit Court of Warren County
reversed the decision of the Commission, finding that, by the employer’s own assertions, Claiborne was
terminated for “unsatisfactory performance,” and that unsatisfactory performance alone does not rise to the
level of disqualifying misconduct.
¶2.
This Court, having reviewed the record de novo, as is our obligation in appeals of this nature (see
Sprouse v. MESC, 639 So. 2d 901 (Miss. 1994)), concludes that there was substantial evidence in the
record to support a determination by the Commission that Claiborne’s persistent failure to perform easilyaccomplished but nevertheless important duties of her job demonstrated “carelessness and negligence of
such degree, or recurrence thereof, as to manifest culpability . . . showing an intentional . . . disregard of
the employer’s interest.” Wheeler v. Arriola, 408 So. 2d 1381, 1383 (Miss. 1982). Such a finding
requires that the employee be disqualified from receiving benefits. Miss. Code Ann. § 71-5-513 (Supp.
2003).
¶3.
Evidence presented to the Commission showed that Claiborne had received numerous corrective
action reports during two years of employment, and that in the period from January 31, 2002 through
March 2, 2002, she received four separate write-ups for failure to properly carry out her duties. Those
final four alleged failures to properly perform included a failure to properly close and verify the locking of
a slot machine door; the unexcused failure to respond to a radio call; failure to follow proper protocol in
paying out a jackpot; and over-filling a slot machine hopper.
¶4.
Judicial review of a decision of an administrative agency of the government is a limited exercise.
Johnson v. MESC, 767 So. 2d 1088, 1090 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2000). The reviewing court does not
review the evidence to arrive at its own interpretation of where the preponderance lies. MESC v. Hudson,
757 So. 2d 1010, 1013 (¶9) (Miss. Ct. App. 2000). Rather, so long as there is substantial evidence in
the record to support the agency decision, the appellate court must affirm even were that court to feel that
the preponderance of the evidence supported a different outcome. Miss. Code Ann. § 71-5-531 (Rev.
2000); Caraway v. MESC, 826 So. 2d 100, 102 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2002). We find that there was
such evidence in this case.
2
¶5.
Alternatively, the appellate court may intercede if it determines that the agency applied an incorrect
legal standard. E.g., MESC v. Universal Wearparts, Inc., 766 So. 2d 104, 106 (¶5) (Miss. Ct. App.
2000). The circuit court appears to have seized on this aspect of the law to reverse when it lifted the
phrase “unsatisfactory work performance” from a report that attributed that terminology to the employer’s
Human Resources Clerk. From there, the circuit court offered the view that, as a matter of law, mere
unsatisfactory performance could not rise to the level of misconduct.
¶6.
With respect for the reasoning of the circuit court, we find that contention unpersuasive. There is
no indication that the clerk who offered the characterization of the reason for Claiborne’s termination
understood it as being a legal term of art. It is the actual facts surrounding the grounds for termination that
control and not the terminology by which some individual attempts – perhaps incorrectly – to offer a
summary definition of the basis for termination that controls the question. We have little trouble in finding
that prolonged and persistent failure to perform routine duties that the employee is capable of performing
properly, especially when that employee is given repeated warnings of those failures but apparently refuses
to heed those warnings, may rise to the level of disqualifying misconduct as that term has been defined by
statutory enactment and subsequent judicial interpretation.
¶7.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WARREN COUNTY IS REVERSED
AND RENDERED, THUS REINSTATING THE DECISION OF THE MISSISSIPPI
EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION THAT THE APPELLEE HEREIN WAS
DISQUALIFIED FROM RECEIVING UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BENEFITS.
KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, THOMAS, LEE, IRVING, MYERS,
CHANDLER AND GRIFFIS, JJ., CONCUR.
3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.